|
Hey everyone,
I've played at some really amazing tables. I've also played at some really terrible ones. To wit, I've been pondering of late what makes the difference, and I've come to believe (at least, for the moment,) that the difference is immersive game state.
As a GM, at my tables recently, I've been trying to really up my storytelling game. I try to describe the feel of the air on your skin, the shadows playing around the edges of light sources, and the ambient sounds around you. When spellcasters cast spells, I make certain I know what material components the spell uses and describe exactly how the spell comes together. I do this as a player now, too. Example from today, as a player.
"I spit in my palm. Then I reach into my spell component pouch and withdraw a pinch of soot and salt, which I mix with my saliva while canting over it, and it begins to glow with a soft red light. In a swift gesture, I wipe the glowing slurry from ear to ear like this [demonstrate from ear to ear by way of the eyes]. When I open my eyes, I begin to read aloud the following:" [the GM takes over]
Another example - Enlarge Person:
"You see the wizard withdraw something from his pouch and begin to cant. As he does a ball of glowing, golden dust seems to rise from his hands and swirl in ever-widening paths. Spellcraft?" [Dice roll] "You'd guess that's probably iron filings, and the spell is Enlarge Person."
[later]
"As M'natas's arrow shatters against the wall, you look over, and the swirl of golden dust seems to erupt across the room and envelop the barbarian, who almost instantly doubles in size."
As a GM, I find this seems to really engage my players. I also find that if I'm not careful, it turns a 4 hour adventure into a six-hour one. Or, to be more honest, I find I give up after I realize I'm behind and start running the game in speed mode. Thus, the beginning of the game seems very immersive, and the end (to me) seems very grind-it-out.
GMs: How do you balance creating a player's experience with respecting their time? How do you create an immersive environment that everyone's going to love and enjoy without running over your scheduled timeframe. With PFS, this is especially important.
Players: How much do you put into your storytelling? Do you follow the GM's lead, or do you try to lead by example? I look forward to reading your responses!
As a player, I'm largely a "role" player. I quite enjoy sticking in the character I've made and playing it out with whatever NPCs the DM offers up and that my character might actually approach. I wouldn't say I go into as much detail as the components from a pouch (me and my friends play over skype), but I do enjoy writing out saying, or doing things in character. It's especially fun when the other players are in character enough, to react. Then I do the same, and it's a ping-pong game of action and reactions between us.
Thing is... about half of the group, myself included, enjoys RPing. The other half, tends to be quite a bit more interested in combat then of RP. So, like you, I try to keep that in mind. Which means I won't RP as much as I'd like, I'd have my character skip saying or doing something if it means holding up the game too long and the others spacing out. It can be rough. So I guess you could say I and the other try to lead a bit by example.
With that in mind, I've DM'd a few times. I think you really have to know your players to know what'll capture their interests. Some love RP. Some love being powerful and displaying it in battle. Other's love challenge and near death experiences. I solo DM for the man that DMs our group game. Sort of my way of saying thanks for putting up with us and also to better myself in DMing, in case I ever have a game I'm truly interested in developing for a full on group. While he enjoys RPing, and has said as much, when I asked him straight up what he wanted to see, he told me extreme challenges that he'd have to overcome with skills, wit and occasional fighting. So, throughout our solo games, I've been throwing things at him, learning and adjusting it to him. Not easy as he insisted on going rogue for a solo....
I find that i am not overly descriptive. I try to set themes and moods and my goal is to tell the players enough so they start imagining it on their own.
In-fact if players look for something that belongs I will always include it or make it interesting why it is not there.
I find setting the theme and emotions at the beginning can let the players see it and understand it o their own.
In my home games I will often let the players create the world as I ask them to describe to the PCs what they find in a room and improve it as a DM. If it is something i really do not want I change it slightly and suggest the player saw it wrong and why they could have.
As a player. I roleplay everything. I will interject on monologues from NPCs, I talk to the other players during combat, and I never just go with the adventure because "that's what you are supposed to do". I find when I start roleplaying my characters other people get into it. My high cha character got approached to save someones daughter, i said "cool story bro that sounds like a you problem, bye!" Then another player berated me in character and shamed me into helping. This way other players get engaged with the story and my character.
When you have a whole party in character debating in character something I am most entertained.
The best stories are co-creative, but not everyone is into that. Therein lies the rub. The key is balance.
I avoid monologues like the plague, preferring to infer details and let players divine (or ignore) story points and NPC depth. I intersperse this "indirect-storytelling" w periodic cut-scenes (like video games) for stitching story elements together that are important for context. If players are co-creative, they will insert themselves into the flow and help elaborate story elements, if they are not co-creative, then they tend to appreciate the brevity.
The other trick I use is to surface previous player actions as cannon and lore. I go far out of my way to make sure every other session or so has some link, reference or down-right inter-dependence with something players, both at the table and not at the table, are doing in another/parallel group or have done in the past. Pretty much all the kingdoms, lore, stories, fables, etc in the setting come from the heroics of people in the game, or previously in the game, which greatly accommodates the reduction of monologues/narration because many of the players are the source of background/cannon, and enjoy reveling and reminiscing in their own anecdotes far more than whatever brain candy I throw at them. You know you are winning as GM when the players are telling and re-telling stories! Conversation 101 - people like to talk/hear about themselves. This requires a servant-leader attitude in a GM; the players are no there for you, but rather the reverse.
A further distillation on player mindset is also required. Calling some combat-oriented and others RP-ey is too simplistic. It's better to say some are enriched by emotional involvement, some by sense of progress and some a mix. This is important subtext to the broad categorization of Player A as "combat guy" and Player B as "RP guy" because Player B may tend to enjoy story and emotion, but may also be using RP to push the progress angle, just as Player B may be combat-centric because he enjoys some emotional element. Alternately, someone could be chatty one session, then not the next. The point: people are 4-dimensional and an adaptive approach is required, thereby refuting the idea there is a fixed formula. This infers that the ability to call an audible and tailor, go silly or go deep is an important GM skill. If you have notes and a plan that cannot be altered, you risk scripting. Most players hate that, consciously or unconsciously, because it negates their freedom and contribution.
On that note, the next layer for me is accessing and tailoring story to the individual. Sometimes GMs fall into a trap of seeing the players as just a party rather than discrete players/characters. As a general goal, I want each player to touch the dice at least once per 15-20 minutes and have a unique NPC interaction, private note or side-bar once per hour. This philosophy also drives me to create balanced custom gear to everyone feels like a unique snowflake. It also fosters a tendency to play the player - meaning, to insert story elements I know the players will react to positively, even if his character would seem not to care by his background, role or description.
Finally, personal style - I never plan anything. I sit down with the PCs and am almost totally blank on the first session. I use a method I call Story Casting to plant plot seeds. Like any GM I have a general idea of the story plot (undead campaign, treasure hunt, grand rescue), but instead of planning, I just drop in NPCs, strange loot, etc on a few ad-hoc encounters and see how the players respond. Once I see what excites them, then I do some light notes for the next session in that area. This is like casting a fishing pole in a stocked pond. You will always catch something, and sometimes it will surprise you, but since the hook is baited by the players, it will always be a success.
All this blather is not worth much w out setting ground rules and having good communication. A GM should not need to carrot or stick a player or party into his notion of order - so many posts like that on the forums - when he has access to words and a brain. Subtle story manipulation and conversation are the best chemistry set to keep you game on track (second only to legitimate love of the game).
Of course, I am old. Been GMing for over 30 years. I've had a lot of time to acquire falsehood and bad habits as well as experience. ;-)